nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Adam Johnson joking about raping his victim

PREG1967

is this just 'prison locker room talk' or evidence that you cant cure a sex offender?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/3382364/rape-charities-slam-adam-johnson/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Beyondgone

PREG1967 wrote: »

Gary glitter and jimll fix it dj scott etc cases did him no favours

He was an eejit the one time. They were cnuts full time.

CoolHandBandit

Cold day in hell before i watch or read anything The Sun newspaper publishes.

Father Hernandez

Absolutely not condoning what he did in the first place but having watched this video, his words are completely taken out of context seeing as there are several different clips. Yes he makes a joke about it which isn't correct at all but he's saying in jest for the sentence he got.

A lot of what he's saying is right though, there are far worse people having done worse crimes and getting lenient sentences.

He was made an example of because of who he was, whether right or wrong and also admitted that it was only a kiss (again not agreeing) whereas there were rumours he had done more, etc.

It is also the Sun, absolute rag of a paper looking to stitch him up.

Murrisk

Beyondgone wrote: »

He was an eejit the one time. They were cnuts full time.

A court of law decided that he was grooming his victim. Grooming takes time and intent. Does it matter if it was only once? Once could turn in many times if left unchecked.

One eyed Jack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You can't help being amused by what you feel he's going to do? You do realise that by that logic.. you're just amusing yourself.

Look, you can sneer and be as sarcastic as you like, but it won't make his sentence any less inconsistent though, nor his incredulity any less warranted.

Pete the only reason he finds anything incredible is because he thinks hes a famous footballer.

Beyondgone

Murrisk wrote: »

A court of law decided that he was grooming his victim. Grooming takes time and intent. Does it matter if it was only once? Once could turn in many times if left unchecked.

And if my Granny had wheels, she'd be a bicycle. As Gino D'Acampo once said.

Jimoslimos

Beyondgone wrote: »

He was an eejit the one time. They were cnuts full time.

I thought at the time the sentence was a tad harsh but looking at the summary of evidence it was a little more calculated than a one-time mistake. He knew full well what he was doing, and even went to the trouble of googling information on age of consent.

That said, although the sentence was fully warranted, I think if it was a rugby player in a similar situation they wouldn't have got as long a stretch for two reasons a) social class and b) lack of media interest in the story.

PREG1967

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I thought at the time the sentence was a tad harsh but looking at the summary of evidence it was a little more calculated than a one-time mistake. He knew full well what he was doing, and even went to the trouble of googling information on age of consent.

That said, although the sentence was fully warranted, I think if it was a rugby player in a similar situation they wouldn't have got as long a stretch for two reasons a) social class and b) lack of media interest in the story.

his ' please delete this convo' text message makes him seem so dim but calculated even if it was just 1+1=2

Murrisk

Beyondgone wrote: »

And if my Granny had wheels, she'd be a bicycle. As Gino D'Acampo once said.

That make no sense, we're not talking hypotheticals with this case. There was evidence, he was convicted based upon it. And as said by another poster said, he was much more calculated than his apologists like to make out.

Beyondgone

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I thought at the time the sentence was a tad harsh but looking at the summary of evidence it was a little more calculated than a one-time mistake. He knew full well what he was doing, and even went to the trouble of googling information on age of consent.

That said, although the sentence was fully warranted, I think if it was a rugby player in a similar situation they wouldn't have got as long a stretch for two reasons a) social class and b) lack of media interest in the story.

Also, people assume rugby players have suffered more than their fair share of traumatic brain injuries...

runs and ducks..

In all fairness, people who commit long-term, horrific assaults, get lesser sentences. So do I think this sentence on a massive fool is fair? No. Not really. I didn't set the sentencing precedence. Being an idiot shouldn't add 4 years to his term. Idiots don't get to choose their status.

Mr.Plough

Interesting video. I disliked him before watching it, but didn't dislike him any more after watching it.

Beyondgone

Mr.Plough wrote: »

Interesting video. I disliked him before watching it, but didn't dislike him any more after watching it.

I dislike him too. But 6 years for what he did? Have a look at what other crims are getting sentenced to. Come back with "this is proportionate". It isn't.

Mr.Plough

Beyondgone wrote: »

I dislike him too. But 6 years for what he did? Have a look at what other crims are getting sentenced to. Come back with "this is proportionate". It isn't.

Yeah was just saying he came off ok in the interview considering the circumstances.

anewme

Mr.Plough wrote: »

Interesting video. I disliked him before watching it, but didn't dislike him any more after watching it.

Sure what more can you expect from a pig, only a grunt.

Pac1Man

Handbags is all. Nothing news.

anewme

Pac1Man wrote: »

Handbags is all. Nothing news.

That seems to be his attitude to whole thing.

He may have made a gross error of judgement by thinking that way.

Outlaw Pete

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Pete the only reason he finds anything incredible is because he thinks hes a famous footballer.

Come on, the sentence was a joke, the guy had a clean record and it was him who cut off contact with her. If he is this rich footballer who thought he was above the law and could do what he liked, as you are portraying him to be, then how come a slew of other underage girls haven't come forward also?

I'm not saying what he did should have went unpunished but the punishment far outweighed the crime. He was in his 20's. She was just shy of the age of consent. Perspective ffs.The sentence was wholly inconsistent with sentences handed down to other men who did similar and by the same judge too.

anewme

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ģ

Come on, the sentence was a joke, the guy had a clean record and it was him who cut off contact with her. If he is this rich footballer who thought he was above the law and could do what he liked, as you are portraying him to be, then how come a slew of other underage girls haven't come forward also?

I'm not saying what he did should have went unpunished but the punishment far outweighed the crime. He was in his 20's. She was just shy of the age of consent. Perspective ffs.The sentence was wholly inconsistent with sentences handed down to other men who did similar and by the same judge too.

The guy is a complete sleaze who, by the way is still talking about her "tits" is this video, which you think he generally came across well in.

The only person now who he is damaging, is himself. But he's not clever enough to see that. the kind of weasel who always blames someone else.

Anyone who can't see that this is not going to go well for him, is as deluded as the man himself.

Murrisk

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Come on, the sentence was a joke, the guy had a clean record and it was him who cut off contact with her.

So? That doesn't undo anything. All that says is that he was bored. Also, she was just turned 15. She was nearly a full year off consent and in the teenage years, a lot of mental development will happen in that time.

PREG1967

Murrisk wrote: »

So? That doesn't undo anything. All that says is that he was bored. Also, she was just turned 15. She was nearly a full year off consent and in the teenage years, a lot of mental development will happen in that time.

did he dump her when she turned 16

RayM

Six years doesn't seem like an excessively long sentence for a grown man who used his status as a professional footballer to groom and perform a sex act on a fifteen-year-old fan. He'll probably be out in less than four anyway. Although I wonder if stating that he wishes he had raped her might affect his early release prospects.

One eyed Jack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ģ

Come on, the sentence was a joke, the guy had a clean record and it was him who cut off contact with her. If he is this rich footballer who thought he was above the law and could do what he liked, as you are portraying him to be, then how come a slew of other underage girls haven't come forward also?

I'm not saying what he did should have went unpunished but the punishment far outweighed the crime. He was in his 20's. She was just shy of the age of consent. Perspective ffs.The sentence was wholly inconsistent with sentences handed down to other men who did similar and by the same judge too.

Ok, serious answer then -

I cant answer why other girls didn't come forward. I only know that in this case, it was the girls father made a complaint to police, and it was the fact that he was found guilty of grooming the girl which was actually the more serious offence, plus the fact that he had plead not guilty, and only after he was found guilty did he express any remorse for his actions.

Judges make what appears to be inconsistent sentencing all the time, but that doesn't mean the sentence in this case should be any less, it means the sentences in other cases were too lenient IMO.

Now, as for the release of this video, again it's a case of he was bragging as I see it about his exploits, and bragging about his exploits as if he was the innocent victim in all this who was stitched up by a 15 year old girl, stitched up by the judge, and now stitched up by his fellow cons who themselves are about his level.

At what point does Johnson realise that it's not that everyone is out to stitch him up just because he thinks of himself as a famous footballer, it's because he thinks of himself as a famous footballer, that allowed him to think that everyone else thinks as much of him as he thinks of himself.

Like I said earlier - he bought into his own hype and doesn't even acknowledge the gravity of his actions, his expressed remorse after the verdict was just for show, and then among convicts he thought admired him, he sang like a canary, again for show, unbeknownst to him that he was being recorded. He craves attention, and that's why he chose to take advantage of a 15 year old girl, and that's why he chose to sing like a canary when he thought they'd think he was a great lad who had been stitched up because he was a famous footballer.

He only has himself to blame for his idiocy. Has he never heard the expression - "no honour among thieves"? It's expected that they're hardly the most trustworthy bunch, so he fits in now alright, and not because he's a famous footballer, but because he's been shown to be a compulsive liar who lays the blame off on anyone but himself and refuses to acknowledge any responsibility for his actions.

Mr.Plough

He seems quite anxious and perhaps scared, especially at the start, which would be understandable given:-

a) he's not a hardened criminal who is in prison for the first time, and
b) he's most likely not housed with just other sex offenders (this is an informed guess based on a quick google search of the prison and the way he compares his sentence to the sentences of other sex offenders with convictions for more heinous crimes).

Probably just trying to avoid a hiding, and if that's the case he's chosen his words well imo, and they should be taken with a large grain of salt.

When he says 'I wish I ****ing did for six years (in jail)' his eyes dart to the left as if he's worried he's went a bit too far with that one.

It would be interesting to hear his explanation (in this setting) for the animal porn they found on his computer.

PREG1967

Mr.Plough wrote: »

He seems quite anxious and perhaps scared, especially at the start, which would be understandable given:-

a) he's not a hardened criminal who is in prison for the first time, and
b) he's most likely not housed with just other sex offenders (this is an informed guess based on a quick google search of the prison and the fact he compares his sentence to the sentences of other sex offenders with convictions for more heinous crimes).

Probably just trying to avoid a hiding, and if that's the case he's chosen his words well imo, and they should be taken with a large grain of salt.

When he says 'I wish I ****ing did for six years (in jail)' his eyes dart to the left as if he's worried he's went a bit too far with that one.

It would be interesting to hear his explanation (in this setting) for the animal porn they found on his computer.

In prison other prisoners hate rapists hence his eyes darting once his mask fell?

nacho libre

He might be trying to fit into his environment, but it's quite clear from what he says his remorse during the trial was an act of contrition, he, like most offenders, won't accept as the adult he is fully to blame, he spouts the usual self absolving guff that she was coming on to him, and really wanted it by the way she was dressed. Pathetic.

[Deleted User]

It's also sliding by most commentators that he was convicted of grooming as well, a serious charge and one that rightly deserves a lengthy sentence. He knew damn well what he was doing was wrong.

I don't think his sentence is too long, I think the usual sentences are too short.

Outlaw Pete

Candie wrote: »

He knew damn well what he was doing was wrong.

Yeah, really annoying the way people keep saying he had no idea what he did was illegal.

PREG1967

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, really annoying the way people keep saying he had no idea what he did was illegal.

Who said that?

anewme

Candie wrote: »

I don't think his sentence is too long, I think the usual sentences are too short.

This is the crux of it, though given the recent amount of grooming cases, we can only hope to see more lengthy sentences.

Outlaw Pete

Candie wrote: »

It's also sliding by most commentators that he was convicted of grooming as well...

It's not sliding by anyone, it's just that most people (that followed the case at least) could see from the evidence that it was an absolute nonsense to charge him with that given that charges of grooming usually entail a person having acted in a manner far different to how they would act with someone who was over the age of consent. For example, talking about things only a child would be interested in, things adults generally are not, such as pretending to be able to get tickets for some famous boy band's next concert, crap like that. If anything Johnson treated her like she was much older than she was. I can remember from trial reports that him parking in a dark lane was one of the main things cited as evidence that he groomed her. Give me a break. He was engaged, people knew him to see, of course he was going to meet her covertly ffs.

After he told her things had gone too far she kept pursing him by the way. Went to his home and took photos, then posted them online.

Six years for a fumble with a girl just mere months from the age of consent does not deserve six bloody years in prison. It's grossly inconsistent with sentencing in the UK, particularly for those with clean records. You can base the reasoning for that on the notion that all sentencing should be increased to match Johnson's sentence but that's preposterous and a laughable effort at trying to justify the six year sentence.

Yeah, he knew what he was doing, nobody has ever, to my knowledge, including Johnson himself, ever suggested otherwise.